| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, Adrian Egli wrote:
And whereas I’d agree on a moral ground, having been a person who doesn’t like
to use profanity in everyday discourse, I do think that things said in o.t-d
can get a little passionate. I’m not advocating usage of profanity in every
post, but, in this instance, Dave! was calling JOHN on the usage of acronyms.
Eh, the fallout is going to be fon on this one...
I think that o.t-d should be like ‘the fight club’--what happens in o.t-d stays
in o.t-d (within reason)
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, David Koudys wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, Adrian Egli wrote:
And whereas I’d agree on a moral ground, having been a person who doesn’t
like to use profanity in everyday discourse, I do think that things said in
o.t-d can get a little passionate.
|
Not *that* passionate, in my view and in the view of the other admins as stated
here: http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=11759
| |
I’m not advocating usage of profanity in
every post, but, in this instance, Dave! was calling JOHN on the usage of
acronyms.
|
Dave subsequently requested a cancel of the post, and reposted without the
profanity. As for John’s use of BFD, that matter is being dealt with offline. I
don’t think that the usage is actually that inappropriate myself.
| |
Eh, the fallout is going to be fon on this one...
|
I’d prefer it not be “fon” or “fun” or anything at all, for that matter. Dave
has been quite gracious about responding promptly and politely. If everyone lets
it go, there won’t be any fallout.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
<snip>
> I'd prefer it not be "fon" or "fun" or anything at all, for that matter. Dave
> has been quite gracious about responding promptly and politely. If everyone
> lets it go, there won't be any fallout.
Rats! I was just nuking the popcorn and getting comfy in my Laz-E-boy,
preparing myself for the 'entertaining posts' to come...
;p
Admins, you're doing a bang-up job. Thankfully, from what I've read here, Dave!
will not be censured or 'kicked outta LUGNET' due to his calling someone else on
the usage of acronyms. Acronyms, again imho, is the same as using the actual
words.
But I bloviate...
Dave K
-who has used the acronym SNAFU numerous times, but I quote the movie 'Memphis
Belle'--"Situation Normal--All Fouled Up" in my head every time I use it. At
least, that's what I recall hearing...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
If everyone
lets it go, there won’t be any fallout.
|
LOL Fat chance with Richard hopping about.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, Adrian Egli wrote:
Perhaps we could have implictly undestord code word substitutes for certain rude
words. For example blasphous exclaimations could be replaced by “MegaBlok” and
of couese, the word in question by “bley” (also a four letters) or the
alternative (“blay”) :-)
Lester
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, Lester Witter wrote:
| |
Perhaps we could have implictly undestord code word substitutes for certain
rude words. For example blasphous exclaimations could be replaced by
“MegaBlok” and of couese, the word in question by “bley” (also a four
letters) or the alternative (“blay”) :-)
|
I always figured it’d be funny to replace people’s swears automatically on the
server. So if someone swore, their text would quickly get turned into something
a bit tamer. Something like:
s/freaking/buttermilk buscuit/gi
s/bullpoop/muffin/gi
That way you’d get people saying things like:
“Well, what kind of buttermilk buscuit moron doesn’t know what ‘buttermilk
buscuit’ really means? I love the backpedalling into euphemisms...
My advice: say what you buttermilk buscuit mean and leave the muffin at the
door!”
Not that I’d actually advocate doing it, but it’d teach people quickly to stop
swearing (or more likely would teach them to find backdoors and swear in
nonconventional manners).
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Eaton wrote:
(snipped Lester entirely, and most of what David said)
| |
I always figured it’d be funny to replace people’s swears automatically on
the server.
|
IIRC classic-castle.com has implemented just such a mechanism in their chat,
everything profane that the filter substitutes for gets turned into “MegaBloks”.
It’s actually rather amusing, just as you surmise it would be.
Also IIRC the site admins refine the filter based on observed behaviour.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Eaton wrote:
(snipped Lester entirely, and most of what David said)
| |
I always figured it’d be funny to replace people’s swears automatically on
the server.
|
IIRC classic-castle.com has implemented just such a mechanism in their chat,
everything profane that the filter substitutes for gets turned into
“MegaBloks”. It’s actually rather amusing, just as you surmise it would be.
|
As much as I don’t care for the implied disparaging of my favorite brand, I have
to admit that this is a pretty funny failsafe.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Eaton wrote:
(snipped Lester entirely, and most of what David said)
| |
I always figured it’d be funny to replace people’s swears automatically on
the server.
|
IIRC classic-castle.com has implemented just such a mechanism in their chat,
everything profane that the filter substitutes for gets turned into
“MegaBloks”. It’s actually rather amusing, just as you surmise it would be.
|
As much as I don’t care for the implied disparaging of my favorite brand, I
have to admit that this is a pretty funny failsafe.
Dave!
|
It’s good to read you’re OK with it. When I saw this the other day I thought
“Hey! That’s a very good idea!”
An idea came to me this morning- how about a poll? It would a rating type with
a list of clone brands in alphabetical order and participants would be asked to
think of the most profane word in their vocabulary and that to a clone brand
they feel fits it best, then, the second most profane word to another clone
brand, etc. (each brand only gets used once).
Adr.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Eaton wrote:
(snipped Lester entirely, and most of what David said)
| |
I always figured it’d be funny to replace people’s swears automatically on
the server.
|
IIRC classic-castle.com has implemented just such a mechanism in their chat,
everything profane that the filter substitutes for gets turned into
“MegaBloks”. It’s actually rather amusing, just as you surmise it would be.
|
The odd part, however, is that it makes it difficult to talk about various clone
brands. For instance:
“I MegaBloks hate stupid Megabloks”
but the best part is, not just curse words are filtered out - certain other
terms/words that offend yer average Castle-person are also filtered (words like
“trains” or “space” or “buttermilk biscuits”)
| |
Also IIRC the site admins refine the filter based on observed behaviour.
|
The unfortunate side of the equation, is that sometimes ‘MegaBloks’ is
conversationally understood to be the actual curse word - which can lead to some
problems. Or, in a lighter sense, if you were to actually write “MegaBloks” -
someone might remind you to refrain from cursing.
-Lenny
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Adrian Egli wrote:
| |
| |
As much as I don’t care for the implied disparaging of my favorite brand, I
have to admit that this is a pretty funny failsafe.
|
|
| |
It’s good to read you’re OK with it. When I saw this the other day I thought
“Hey! That’s a very good idea!”
|
In practice I wouldn’t have a problem with it, because I generally don’t resort
to profanity and wouldn’t therefore have to worry about any word-substitution in
my posts. But one dilemma is that it would imply that LUGNET as an entity is
specifically issuing a derogatory endorsement of MEGABLOKS, which to date has
not seemed to be the official position of LUGNET. Granted, it’s certainly a
pro-LEGO forum, but it’s always been generally tolerant rather than condemnative
of clone brands.
| |
An idea came to me this morning- how about a poll? It would a rating type
with a list of clone brands in alphabetical order and participants would be
asked to think of the most profane word in their vocabulary and that to a
clone brand they feel fits it best, then, the second most profane word to
another clone brand, etc. (each brand only gets used once).
|
Cute, but I’d have to wonder how people have formed their opinion of clone
brands sufficient to rate them relative to each other. I’d guess that MEGABLOKS
would probably rate the “worst” just because that’s the most recognized brand.
In fact, Ultra-Blox is objectively of far worse quality, but how many LEGO
purists have familiarity with that brand?
Dave!
I have the feeling that this should be FUT’ed, but I don’t know to where.
Suggestions?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In practice I wouldn't have a problem with it, because I generally don't
> resort to profanity and wouldn't therefore have to worry about any
> word-substitution in my posts.
That and without a way to edit posts, typos can make it look like you swore. I
found a few accidental typos while searching for swears the other day. Things
like someone who misspelled "cut" by inserting an extra letter. Also you've got
to worry about partial-word-swears like .. uh... trying to think of a good
one... like "shiitake mushrooms", although that's a bad one since to spell it
correctly, you're not swearing...
> Cute, but I'd have to wonder how people have formed their opinion of clone
> brands sufficient to rate them relative to each other. I'd guess that
> MEGABLOKS would probably rate the "worst" just because that's the most
> recognized brand. In fact, Ultra-Blox is objectively of far worse quality,
> but how many LEGO purists have familiarity with that brand?
I'd have to agree. MegaBloks is by far the most known. Things like Best-Lock,
Shifty, Loc-Blocks, Tyco, etc. are less known (although Best-Lock might make a
bid for 2nd place after MB).
How would you define "clone brands"? Something that's intended to be compatible
with Lego? Or just any interlocking studded brick system? Cuz there are probably
(I assume?) some totally non-compatible brands that are pretty bad quality.
I know I've seen a page about clone brands before-- how many are out there that
are actually compatible? Do any sites out there compare quality of clone brands?
> I have the feeling that this should be FUT'ed, but I don't know to where.
> Suggestions?
I'm leaning towards l.o-t.c-b... [1]
DaveE
[1] an anagram for "bloct". Sheesh. Mega"Blok", "bloct". These cloners can't
spell worth beenz.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Eaton wrote:
> How would you define "clone brands"? Something that's intended to be compatible
> with Lego? Or just any interlocking studded brick system? Cuz there are probably
> (I assume?) some totally non-compatible brands that are pretty bad quality.
Well, it's only my opinion, but I'd suggest that a "true" clone brand is based
on the studs-and-tubes system and is able to maintain reasonable clutch power
with LEGO bricks and plates. I used to consider the 3:1 plate:brick height
ratio to be an important factor, but Tyco and MEGABLOKS have both used a
successful 2:1 ratio, so that's out the window.
However, to my knowledge every compatible clone brand uses the 2x4 brick, so we
might propose a more detailed classification based on this nature of this brick
for each brand:
1. Compatible Clone Brand: The clone 2x4 brick matches the LEGO 2x4
brick in size and proportion, within a certain nebulously defined
threshold (microns, or what-have-you). This includes Tyco and
MEGABLOKS, for example.
2. Competitor Clone Brand: Adheres to the general interlocking brick
format but is not truly compatible because of differences in height
or proportion. May or may not work with LEGO to some extent.
Examples include Tente, Best-Lock, MEGABLOKS Nano, ATCO, and Loc-Bloc
3. Construction Toys: Designed to be wholly separate from LEGO and are
only incidentally compatible, if at all. Lincoln Logs, K'Nex, Tinker
Toy, and the like are included in this group.
> I know I've seen a page about clone brands before-- how many are out there that
> are actually compatible? Do any sites out there compare quality of clone brands?
Joseph Gonzalez maintained an excellent repository of information until he
entrusted it to me, since which time it has languished in html limbo. Here's a
brief list of compatible clone brands in what I consider to be decreasing order
of plastic quality, though my studies have hardly been exhaustive. Other
factors, such as cleverness of set design or piece:price value, are not factored
in:
Tyco, Coko, Larami, Oxford, Blok-Tek (there is evidence that these companies
have had access to the same molding equipment, so the degree of
separation between these companies is unclear. There is some clear
overlap, but other aspects, such as minifig design are distinct between
brands)
Byggis
Qubo
Hasbro's Built-To-Rule
Cobi, Block-Men (both have access to the same molding equipment, but not the
same molds or brick-types as Tyco et al)
C3 (currently in use by Mini-Mates for the Justice League line of sets)
Tandem (includes Intelli-Blox)
MEGABLOKS
Brick, Shifty (may be a single company and may have some affiliation with
Coko, but the link is uncertain and difficult to confirm. Both of these
brands are generally of much lower quality than Coko, and the brands
have violated LEGO's patent on numerous brick designs.
Ultra-Blox, Bricks By The Pound (really low quality plastic, kind of like
the plastic used in kiddie-pool toys.
There are others, but these are the ones that spring to mind first for me.
Dave!
|
|
| |
Hello,
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Tyco, Coko, Larami, Oxford, Blok-Tek (there is evidence that these companies
have had access to the same molding equipment, so the degree of
separation between these companies is unclear. There is some clear
overlap, but other aspects, such as minifig design are distinct between
brands)
|
Regarding Dave’s comment on the distinction of minifig designs between brands; I
have taken the liberty to do a rough comparison of the actual differences
between an Oxford minifig and a Lego one. I am posting it
here as it contains
some big images.
Another interesting point is that, if you look at
this thread, you’ll see that not even Lego has a consistent mold regarding its
own minifigs (Han Solo’s acute torso vs. Harry Potter’s rounder one). I’m still
pondering as to why this is, so if anyone has any information I’d appreciate
their sharing.
Finally, on my main site (http://www.redbeanstudio.net), I’ve compiled a list
of all the known (and working) websites of all the so-called ‘clone brands’ (it
can be found in the link section). I’ll appreciate it very much also if anyone
can point out if I’m missing anything. Oh, btw, I tend to classify clone brand
by the usability of its accessories by a Lego minifig, and the accessories have
to be made in hard ABS plastics (thus ruling out Kubricks). Thank you.
Red Bean
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Isaac Yue wrote:
| |
Hello,
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Tyco, Coko, Larami, Oxford, Blok-Tek (there is evidence that these companies
have had access to the same molding equipment, so the degree of
separation between these companies is unclear. There is some clear
overlap, but other aspects, such as minifig design are distinct
between brands)
|
Regarding Dave’s comment on the distinction of minifig designs between
brands; I have taken the liberty to do a rough comparison of the actual
differences between an Oxford minifig and a Lego one. I am posting it
here as it contains
some big images.
|
That’s really interesting. The four Oxford minifigs that I have (from the tank
set 13000) have a leg design that’s considerably different from what you’ve
shown. I’ll try to scan them to show you what I mean.
| |
Finally, on my main site (http://www.redbeanstudio.net), I’ve compiled a
list of all the known (and working) websites of all the so-called ‘clone
brands’ (it can be found in the link section). I’ll appreciate it very much
also if anyone can point out if I’m missing anything. Oh, btw, I tend to
classify clone brand by the usability of its accessories by a Lego minifig,
and the accessories have to be made in hard ABS plastics (thus ruling out
Kubricks).
|
Here are two others:
Art Asylum. (The product is called
“C3,” but that part of the website apparently isn’t available quite yet).
Hasbro has the Built To Rule toys as showcased
here, but I don’t believe that the product line is being supported any longer.
Both of these brands use good quality ABS, but the accessories do not fit in
minifig hands at all.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Isaac Yue wrote:
| |
Oh, btw, I tend to classify clone brand by the usability of its accessories
by a Lego minifig, and the accessories have to be made in hard ABS plastics
(thus ruling out Kubricks).
|
Uh, wouldn’t that sorta rule out the real LEGO system? Shortswords haven’t been
made in ABS for years, and I don’t believe the minesweeper or cutlass/sabre ever
were. The huge axe and katana never were, and the whip/vine would probably
arrive damaged in many sets if it was. Or do you allow for some accessories to
be made from non-ABS plastic as long as the majority of them are?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Isaac Yue wrote:
| |
Oh, btw, I tend to classify clone brand by the usability of its accessories
by a Lego minifig, and the accessories have to be made in hard ABS plastics
(thus ruling out Kubricks).
|
Uh, wouldn’t that sorta rule out the real LEGO system? Shortswords haven’t
been made in ABS for years, and I don’t believe the minesweeper or
cutlass/sabre ever were. The huge axe and katana never were, and the
whip/vine would probably arrive damaged in many sets if it was. Or do you
allow for some accessories to be made from non-ABS plastic as long as the
majority of them are?
|
Hey, I hadn’t thought of that. That also rules out Oxford and Coko, but it may
rule-in Stikfas, which are entirely non-compatible, other than their
accessories.
I stand by my 2x4 brick distintion!
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
That’s really interesting. The four Oxford minifigs that I have (from the
tank set 13000) have a leg design that’s considerably different from what
you’ve shown. I’ll try to scan them to show you what I mean.
|
After you said that I went back to look at all my Oxford figs, and I noticed
that the military Oxford figs I have also have different legs design (they’re
more like Lego’s with holes in the back, but are square instead of round). So
apparently Oxford have different molds for their figs, too (the other one is
from a Dragon set)!! I, too, will post some pics up later when I have some free
times.
Red Bean
|
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, David Laswell wrote:
| |
Uh, wouldn’t that sorta rule out the real LEGO system? Shortswords haven’t
been made in ABS for years, and I don’t believe the minesweeper or
cutlass/sabre ever were. The huge axe and katana never were, and the
whip/vine would probably arrive damaged in many sets if it was. Or do you
allow for some accessories to be made from non-ABS plastic as long as the
majority of them are?
|
|
Hmm... I see you have a point there. So I guess what I really mean is as long as
the accessories don’t look out of place in the hands of a Lego minifig
(relatively speaking), I’d consider them a clone brand which I defined by
companies that are dedicated to making products that are compatible with the
Lego universe.
I think Dave’s 2x4 brick classification is a good one, too. But I’ve always been
more interested in minifigs & accessories from different brands than the actual
bricks themselves, so my way of classification is more geared towards that, I
guess. But good topic nonetheless :)
Red Bean
|
|
|
